I agree that all-chain anchor rode is the answer with the CQR. Big ships and naval moorings rely on the catenary curve of the chain as much as weight of the anchors - few anchors drag when the pull is straight along the bottom! We have a 45lb Kingston Plow (Canadian CQR copy) with 150 feet of 3/8 chain on our 9 ton Hunter 37 cutter. We used to sometimes have trouble setting it on a chain & rope rode, but after installing a windlass and all-chain, we never fail to get hooked. I also have a 45 lb Danforth and plan to add a Bruce (one of the most popular anchors around our waters).

That's a good set up, Three diff. types of anchor for diff. conditions and plenty of scope. Chapmans say's 5 to 1. I put out 10 to 1. 10 feet of water = 100 feet of chain. If it's deeper, I pull out at least one of my dumb bell and shackle it mid scope for a sentinal. I used to use a second anchor mid scope before I found these dumbells.

.....Chapmans say's 5 to 1. I put out 10 to 1. 10 feet of water = 100 feet of chain........

Not that it matters much when you put out 10 to 1, but the chain doesn't know how deep the water actually is. The geometry is based on the distance from the top of your bow roller to the ocean floor. This can make a big difference if one is doing the ordinary 5 to 1 for chain or 7 to 1 for rode, math in shallow water and your bow roller is 3, 4 or even 5 feet above the water.

Thats true. My point is I put out more than recomended. I don't really ever know If it's 10 or 13 feet, or care. I sight the anchor rhode angle and make my decsion on scope based on how abtuse the angle is. I want that thing running staight out and not straight down.

The other factor is technique. Growing up cruising with Gran pa in the Key's and Bahamas, we would constantly see a boat, ( usually power) pull in to the anchorage and A. drop the hook while still moving forward B. drop while heading down wind C. drop a bunch of chain on top of it's self. D. all of the above. I know I'm preaching to choir here when I say we need to be heading in to the prodominent force be it current or wind, be at a complete stop or moving slightly back when we gently lay down the anchor and let out the rhode straight. Experienced Cruisers know this, but If I had a nickle for every time I've seen a bare boat charter ( usually a Hunter passage) drop there hook heading down wind at 3 knt.s I could retire. Otoh, you know that thing is dug in when it catches and whip's the boat around.

Thats a lot of work Capt.Aaron
Get a good big modern anchor. Problem sorted.
Crusing is supposed to fun

Generally it's not a lot of work. I sail in, drop my oversized CQR and 100 feet of 5/8 chain and done. I'm sipping on my cocktail while the cruising couple is over there yelling at each other, setting and re-setting. I snorkle out and check it before I have a second drink and sleep well. In the morning I raise my sail and pick up the chain as I sail up on it and, up come's the anchor. I'm a mile a long while the cruising couple is motoring up on the anchor, pointing and yelling over the engine.

That's a lot of anchors and what sounds like a lot of work. I supposed that if you will be anchored over night it's the right thing to do and I'm sure you sleep better because of it.

On my current boat (O'day 35) I used to carry a 33 lb claw with 30' of chain and a 30 lb danforth with 10' of chain. Both were on the bow, the danforth in the anchor locker and the claw on deck or on the roller. Then, I realized that in 5+ years I've been sailing this boat, that I have spent a total of 2 nights at anchor. So this year I took the claw (with the chain and rode) home and just have the danforth in the locker. The boat sails better and so far I have anchored 3 times for a total of about 2 hours.

If I go somewhere where I think I'll be anchored out (not likely) I'll bring the claw back on board.

Most of my anchoring is to stop for lunch and a swim. This will be in protected water, in fair weather, for a relatively short time.

My point is I have one oversized anchor and chain, so 90% of the time, I drop that and relax. The other anchors are at my disposal If I decide I need them. The reason I can have fun cruising is because when I'm hiking to the water fall or out on the town in some cool port. I'm only slightly thinking about what's happening when the weather changes and I'm 4 hours from the boat. If I'm having dinner with my wife in cafe and a sqaul rolls through, she look's at me and ask's if the boat is o.k., I say "ya, I knew we might be gone for a while and I hooked up the 70 lb danforth." It's a little work that's worth so much.

From my perspective, these kinds of discussions boil down to acceptable level of risk. When I started thinking again about anchors and more specifically, the so-called 'next generation anchors', I had hoped that these new anchor designs might really be more efficient designs, by which I mean greater holding power and reliability for a given weight. Since I typically sail on and off the anchor, and often single-hand, I want an reliable anchor that I can also handle easily.

When I began to evaluate the so-called 'next generation anchors', I found that they had to be wildly heavier than the anchors that I had been using. I concluded that if they need that much weight to generate adequate holding for a boat of my boat's size and weight, it seemed like these newer designed anchors must be a comparatively inefficient designs compared to the WW II era designs that I currently use.

To put that statement into perspective, my current ground tackle consists of a primary anchor, which is a Danforth 13 lb Deepset, my Storm anchor, which is a Danforth 20 lb hi-tensile, and I have a 21 lb Fortress FX 37 as a back up. A next gen anchor would be closer to 35-45 lbs.

I can handle my current anchors without a windlass, they fit through the bow pulpit (except the fortress), so they can be stowed securely within their assigned lockers when stowed under sail, the Fortress being partially knocked down.

In fairness, in a conversation with one of the ‘next gen anchor’ manufacturers, it became clear that these new anchors are designed and have published holding numbers which are based on a higher margin of safety in their worst holding conditions, which coincidentally is the predominant bottom condition around here.

But even so, it seems to me, it would make no sense to increase the weight of my anchors when my current compliment of anchors are 1/2 to 2/3rds the weight of these newer and are still only rated for a boat of my size and weight. Especially since my current anchors all hold well in whatever bottom that I have tried them on (soft mud, sand, hard clay), except early spring leaves, and even there they pretty well matched the heavier anchors on friends' boats around me. My 13 lb deepset Danforth with a 20 lb kellet shackled to 40 feet of chain and a couple hundred feet of nylon rode survived the 60 knot gusts of a partially spent hurricane (albeit in a moderately sheltered river) without dragging.

At some level, even discounting for the larger safety factors, if the numbers are even close to right for my boat, there is a part of me that feels like these new anchors should more accurately be called "the Generation Before Last Anchors", since they have seemingly gone so far backward in efficiency.

And the idea of adding a windlass or worse yet trying to handle a 35 or 45 lb anchor without one, is really not something that I visualize doing, which is mostly about being 62 years old and not getting any younger and the purposely simple forms of cruising that I tend to do.

For years I have been thinking about anchor design, and more specifically thinking about what my ideal anchor would look like. I would call this the perfect coastal cruiser anchor rather than the perfect world cruiser anchor. My ideal anchor would be a mix of metals to keep weight down. My thought is that that portions of the anchor need to be abrasion resistant and hold a reasonably sharp edge, while other parts of the anchor only need to be strong enough to hold in the bottom.

If I were designing my "ideal anchor" it would have a steel or stainless steel frame. That frame would include a removable and replaceable tip or snout, which would be reasonably sharp, and hardened to enter the bottom. The snout would form the leading edge of anchor in contact with the bottom and would be mounted at the end of a "keel" which would be an integral part of the frame.

The Keel would be curved so that the snout was aimed downward in order to pull the flukes into the bottom. The back end of the keel would turn slightly downward and have a flat area that behaved like the equivalent of a Fortress 'mud palm'. The keel would also serve to stiffen and weight the flukes.

From the back of the keel, the rest of the steel frame portion of the anchor would curve back on itself and attach to the tiller bar (shaft) where the rode (and recovery penant) would be attached.

The flukes and roll bar would then be aluminum to keep the weight a little more managable and to help concentrate the weight lower in the anchor where it is needed. If the flukes are aluminum, they can have a larger fluke area than if they were steel, and that would mean better holding in soft mud and sugar sand. The roll bar could be tubular for greater stiffness to weight, and would be configured to act as a strut stiffening the edges of the flukes. It would also be nice if the anchor could quickly be broken down and laid flat for storage in a locker on a long passage.

I know that there are issues about dissimilar metals and stainless steel's performance under water which would have to be considered in the design. I also know there is a bias in the yachting community against anchors which can be disassembled, but that is mostly amongst the recent 'world cruiser mindset" community. Historically anchors were designed to fold and no one complained.

My favorite anchor is my Bronze folding fisherman. I like it so much I never use it. Jeff, I'm glad that you can get by with those tiny anchors, I would never in a million years leave my boat or go to sleep sitting on 16 lb. any thing. Or 20 for that matter. Raising a 35 Danforth by hand is not difficult. But that's the beauty of setting up our own stuff, we can do it as we see fit. If I'm helping a newbe, I brain wash 'em to believing my philosophy of over sized primary anchors and I believe the anchorage is a safer place because of it. It's hard to argue that a smaller or lighter anchor is better for anything. Like many thing's in life, when it comes to anchors, size does matter.

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

OR

Log-in

User Name

Password

Remember Me?

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.